I write on behalf of Barclays PLC pursuant to
your Press Notice No. 2, dated 10 March 1999. I would like to
thank you for giving us an opportunity to submit written evidence
to you.

As you may be aware, we have also previously
submitted a response to the Treasury Select Committee, and understand
that you have access to such material. We thought you might find
it helpful if we let you have a more focused version of this material.
The enclosed submission therefore focuses on the following areas
where our response is summarised (not printed):

1. PROPOSEDARRANGEMENTSFORTHEACCOUNTABILITYOFTHE FSA

We believe that the Bill should provide adequately
for the scrutiny of the Annual Report both through Parliament
and through an external audit processin the latter case
as part of the preparation of the Annual Report.

2. PROPOSEDSTATUTORYOBJECTIVESANDPRINCIPLESOFTHE FSA

We broadly welcome these as they should enhance
the accountability of the FSA. However, we are not clear how they
relate to one another and how conflicts of priority between the
different objectives may be resolved.

3. DISCIPLINE, ENFORCEMENTANDTHETRIBUNAL

We have a number of concerns regarding the disciplinary
measures contained in Part XII of the Bill. These primarily relate
to the transparency and fairness of the investigation procedure
and the interaction with the FSA's powers to institute proceedings
under clause 215. The FSA has moved some way in recognising these
concerns since our submission to the Treasury Select Committee
in November 1998.

4. SCOPEOFTHENEWREGIME

We support the Government's decision to allow
the self-regulatory approach to the new mortgage code time to
bed down before resorting to a statutory regime.

5. OMBUDSMANANDCOMPENSATIONSCHEME

We broadly welcome such schemes although we
are unsure as to their application and funding. We enclose a copy
of our recent letter to the British Bankers Association.

6. MARKETABUSE

We believe that the current draft needs much
re-thinking and re-drafting to take account of the overlaps with
the existing law. There is a significant danger that, as currently
drafted, the provisions will do little to protect confidence in
the integrity of relevant markets and will add much in the way
of confusion and complexity.